What is the reason for cushioning road shoes for elites?

try to keep up chump wrote:

Not So Sure 'Bout Dat wrote:

So, now you are switching to "so you can train more". Which is it? Train more? Run faster? Oh, and both of those are preceded by "when you don't get injured".

So, I was right all along.

Moran.

All of the above. Except for your "right all along" flail. Just trying to get you to understand how running works.

Keep scrambling!

You’re the fool. He’s right and you are all over the place.

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

try to keep up chump wrote:

All of the above. Except for your "right all along" flail. Just trying to get you to understand how running works.

Keep scrambling!

You’re the fool. He’s right and you are all over the place.

Um, he's the one who started talking about cavities and dating.

try to keep up chumps wrote:

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

You’re the fool. He’s right and you are all over the place.

Um, he's the one who started talking about cavities and dating.

It's called an analogy and I was using it to expose your lack of logic skills. The fact that you think I was the one who started arguing illogically proves you need to take a philosophy class.

By the way, I find it very amusing that many people who were advocating for minimalist shoes (i.e. FiveFingers) several years ago switched to advocating high stack (i.e. Hoka) a few years later. Now, most of them are back to "normal" shoes like Asics, Brooks, or Saucony.

Shoes are a hinderance to raw speed because they have weight.

The reason anyone ever slows down is because they are uncomfortable for one reason or another.

Shoes make you run more comfortably because of the cushion.

The best shoe for the race is the shoe that provides sufficient cushion (comfort) for the race distance at the lowest possible weight.

This means that the amount of cushion required is directly related to race distance.

Even for 120lb elites running for 2 hours, pavement pounding gets uncomfortable.

Not So Sure 'Bout Dat wrote:

try to keep up chumps wrote:

Um, he's the one who started talking about cavities and dating.

It's called an analogy and I was using it to expose your lack of logic skills. The fact that you think I was the one who started arguing illogically proves you need to take a philosophy class.

By the way, I find it very amusing that many people who were advocating for minimalist shoes (i.e. FiveFingers) several years ago switched to advocating high stack (i.e. Hoka) a few years later. Now, most of them are back to "normal" shoes like Asics, Brooks, or Saucony.

Philosophy. eh? What's next in your all over the place technique?

You should have bowed out when you tried to use the old "end of thread" method of attempting to dominate a discussion. But that didn't work, did it?

You do realize that philosophy is the study of.... (wait for it) LOGIC.

You definitely need it if you think I'm all over the place. My argument has been and remains that shoes prevent injury. You have stated at least three different reasons for shoes some of which are primary reasons and others are secondary or tertiary reasons.

Not So Sure 'Bout Dat wrote:

You do realize that philosophy is the study of.... (wait for it) LOGIC.

You definitely need it if you think I'm all over the place. My argument has been and remains that shoes prevent injury. You have stated at least three different reasons for shoes some of which are primary reasons and others are secondary or tertiary reasons.

Um, nobody asked what the main reason was. That was your illogical decision to make that choice.

Shoes make you faster for a number of reasons. Do try to keep up, OK?

this thread is gold.

try to keep up chump wrote:

Um, nobody asked what the main reason was. That was your illogical decision to make that choice.

Uh, the main reason was implied in the OP question. You do know what implied means, right?

Not So Sure 'Bout Dat wrote:

try to keep up chump wrote:

Um, nobody asked what the main reason was. That was your illogical decision to make that choice.

Uh, the main reason was implied in the OP question. You do know what implied means, right?

Uh, how about reading the post? He's looking for any and all reasons. Implied does not mean interpret as you wish.

"Is it only to soften the impact in order to prevent damage for the joints or muscles? Or is it also for mechanics reason, that it helps creating a more powerful bounce or something like that? "

try to keep up chump wrote:

Uh, how about reading the post? He's looking for any and all reasons. Implied does not mean interpret as you wish.

"Is it only to soften the impact in order to prevent damage for the joints or muscles? Or is it also for mechanics reason, that it helps creating a more powerful bounce or something like that? "

Again, you need to study logic.

The word "or" can not mean "both". It can not mean "many". It can not mean "all". "Or" means ONE reason as in "this OR that". Not "both and any".

Kids these days.

It´s really interesting to read how all the basement dwellers on this thread are argueing about who has the least small d1ck.

"Or is it also"

You know what also means, right?